[TETENAL]

Archbishop of Canterbury calls for Sharia law in the UK -Times Online

"The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the UK to adopt Sharia for Muslims. Dr Rowan Williams suggested today that it “seems unavoidable” that elements of Islamic law be accepted into the British legal system. The head of the Church of England believes that officially sanctioning Sharia will improve community relations and aid integration. […] The Archbishop […] suggested that Sharia should be introduced as an officially sanctioned legal alternative in the UK when it came to issues such as marriage and divorce."

I think this guy is nuts. When does he think this law should apply? If one spouse is Muslim or only if both? And if they can choose the legal system what if the wife chooses the British law and the husband chooses Sharia law? There would probably be immense social pressure to women to select Sharia law even if it's to their disadvantage. At the very least women would never know for sure under which set of law they will fall under in case of a marital dispute.

And how is having a completely different set of law going to aid integration? That completely escapes me. It's the opposite.

Sorry, but introducing religious, and therefore fixed and unnegotiable, law is totally unacceptable for a democratic society.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I have a feeling our UKers are gonna tell us this guy has been a life-long nitwit.

[peeb]

“Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women,” he told the BBC World at One programme.

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts."

No, wait, we should jump to conclusions and misrepresent what he said!

[Chongo]

Do you think they will be satisfied with Sharia "lite"

[Chuckit]

Right-o. So he wants Sharia law, but not Sharia law.

I'm thinking this guy is lying one way or the other to try and placate somebody.

[peeb]

Why do you think he's lying? He's perfectly clear is stating what he is suggesting, that elements of Sharia could form alternative dispute resolution functions outside of the court system. The UK already has that in other areas.

[Chuckit]

How do you incorporate Islamic marriage law without also incorporating those laws' attitude toward women?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you incorporate Islamic marriage law without also incorporating those laws' attitude toward women?

That is why I asked if he thinks the Mullahs and imams will be happy if sharia lite.

[Shaddim]

I'm wondering how long it'll be before they allow foot binding.

[Weyland-Yutani]

The head of the Church of England is a loon. He is proposing to inject religious laws into civil laws - which isn't that out of character for a head of a religious institution - but it is completely insane when he is advocating some OTHER religion than he is representing.



Btw: Interesting signature Chongo, but it is way too tall.

[peeb]

The UK does not have a separation of powers - the head of state is also the head of a church - there are religious elements all over the UKs constitution and laws.

[PaperNotes]

All they're going to get is their interest free banking (which isn't really interest free at all) and that's all.

This Archbishop is a total prat by the way. He has been a statesman for Pratville since day one.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

This Archbishop is a total prat by the way. He has been a statesman for Pratville since day one.

Your compelling argument and flawless logic has convinced me!

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Your compelling argument and flawless logic has convinced me!

You are so awesome rebel-fanboy.

That hunch on your back is rather big. I can see it over the horizon. The chip on your shoulder though is indescribable.

[Apemanblues]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I have a feeling our UKers are gonna tell us this guy has been a life-long nitwit.

Bingo!

This UKer can confirm your assertion. Most of the papers are murdering him in the headlines this morning.

I think it's all political though. Christianity in the UK, regardless of it's ludicrously established status, is not taken very seriously anymore. It's atheists a-go-go over here in pagan Europe. However, these pointy hat wearing nit-wits get a little jealous when they see how hardcore the Muslims are, so they get all misty eyed about the good old days when they could burn us for blasphemy.

Hence, the making of alarmist headline grabbing comments every now and then. They need the controversy to show people that they aren't dead yet.

Mores the pity.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You are so awesome rebel-fanboy.
That hunch on your back is rather big. I can see it over the horizon. The chip on your shoulder though is indescribable.

Marvelous! Change just one syllable, and the whole delicate epigram collapses. Please come back when you have something to say that isn't crass abuse.

[PaperNotes]

Rebel rebel boo hoo. Go hug a tree or an Islamist.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Rebel rebel boo hoo. Go hug a tree or an Islamist.

Do everyone a favor and log off and go to bed - come back when you've sobered up.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

I think it's all political though. Christianity in the UK, regardless of it's ludicrously established status, is not taken very seriously anymore. It's atheists a-go-go over here in pagan Europe. However, these pointy hat wearing nit-wits get a little jealous when they see how hardcore the Muslims are, so they get all misty eyed about the good old days when they could burn us for blasphemy.

Exactly.

I'd even go one step further and suggest that the ultimate reason the arsebishop is trying to open the door for sharia law into the system is because it paves the way to introduce christian laws into it, later on. I hear that orthodox jews already have something like this, presumably rabbinical decisions being taken into account in divorce proceedings, or something like that. Wrong, as well, obviously, there shouldn't be exceptions from the law of the land for anybody.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Apemanblues 

I think it's all political though. Christianity in the UK, regardless of it's ludicrously established status, is not taken very seriously anymore. It's atheists a-go-go over here in pagan Europe. However, these pointy hat wearing nit-wits get a little jealous when they see how hardcore the Muslims are, so they get all misty eyed about the good old days when they could burn us for blasphemy.

While a mildly amusing conspiracy theory it sure is the long way around the bush.

In reality the Church of England isn't as much a religious institution as it is a social one for a cultural elite. You'd be hard pressed to find a single bishop who believes in such quaint things as the virgin birth, the ressurection, Christ or even the pesky God fellow.

It is a bunch of atheists and agnostics who would rather seperate God from the Church than the Queen.

The Church of England is a political force, not a religious one.

[TETENAL]

This guy should just resign. It's obvious that he is incapable to represent his church nor political will of the UK.

[Doofy]

Williams is an idiot. Has been forever.

They should sack him and get Sentamu to do the job - Sentamu can't open his mouth without my thinking "that bloke talks a lot of sense".

[chris v]

Forward, into the past!

[Big Mac]

Jihadists everywhere must be smiling upon hearing this news. Imposing Sharia in all countries on earth is one of their top priorities.

[peeb]

You must have read a different article to the one the OP posted.

[Kerrigan]

His comments would make sense in an academic discussion, but it is a mistake to make such statements in a public setting. As a matter of policy, he is not proposing anything. Like he said in his explanation, he was teasing out the consequences of the relationship between secular and religious legal traditions. Of course, it is a mistake to make such a discussion public, because then people are liable to think he is advocating something, which seems to be the misunderstanding here in the lounge.

That's not to say that the Archbishop isn't eccentric or gullible; I think he is both of those things. But this whole debacle is an instance of an academic discussion being put forth in a public setting.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

That's not to say that the Archbishop isn't eccentric or gullible; I think he is both of those things. But this whole debacle is an instance of an academic discussion being put forth in a public setting.

That doesn't really excuse him.

How about this: The archbishop puts forth the idea that homosexuals should be imprisoned or punished, because there is some biblical foundation for it.

Surely that's ok, it's just an academic discussion being put forth in a public setting. Wouldn't make him a complete retard or blathering idiot? He shouldn't resign or anything after putting such ideas, purely academic, in a public setting?

I wouldn't waste my breath excusing that man.

[Kerrigan]

Intellectuals and academics, when critically analyzing something, often come to conclusions, or make statements, that seem strange by common sense standards. However, had Williams' Sharia statement been made behind closed doors at an Oxford lecture, or in a theological setting, no one would have blinked. His mistake is that he made the comment in a setting where journalists could take it of out context and sell it as an outrageous comment.

As for your example, regarding homosexuals, let's not kid ourselves: that is not a conclusion reached by critical methods, nor did occur in an academic environment-- it was just a straw man intended to help your argument.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Intellectuals and academics, when critically analyzing something, often come to conclusions, or make statements, that seem strange by common sense standards. However, had Williams' Sharia statement been made behind closed doors at an Oxford lecture, or in a theological setting, no one would have blinked. His mistake is that he made the comment in a setting where journalists could take it of out context and sell it as an outrageous comment.

As for your example, regarding homosexuals, let's not kid ourselves: that is not a conclusion reached by critical methods, nor did occur in an academic environment-- it was just a straw man intended to help your argument.

Not at all, it is no straw man and my argument is damn good.

You simply choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda. People like the bishop don't make the mistake of making inflamatory remarks in public. That's absurd.

He knew full well what he was doing and saying.

You can accuse me of making a straw-man argument, but that doesn't make it so. Sorry pal. Your bishop is just a socialist atheist and the suggestion that he was doing this to get sharia laws recognized TO then get Christian laws recognized only shows your utter lack of political and religious understanding.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

Your bishop is just a socialist...

You might be surprised to know this is not considered a bad thing outside the US. Not everyone has been subjected to the same level of propaganda that the US has.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani 

...atheist... [sic]

Name calling is one thing, but it's pretty obvious the Arch Bishop is not an atheist.

Political discourse in the UK tends to be a little more civilized and thought through than in the US - nuanced ideas and tolerance are a little easier to come by. The idea that a nation might respect the customs of a particular religious group is not, prima facia, a bad idea in the UK.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Sic is a Latin word meaning "thus", "so", "as such", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized—[sic]—to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[1]

You quoted me and added [sic] after "atheist", but that's how you spell atheist in the English language.

What was your point?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You might be surprised to know this is not considered a bad thing outside the US. Not everyone has been subjected to the same level of propaganda that the US has.

Bzzzt. WY isn't in the US. Nor is he an American.

And he probably knows more about UK politics than you do.

Originally Posted by peeb 

Political discourse in the UK tends to be a little more civilized and thought through than in the US

There is no political discourse in the UK. We just do as our masters say.

Originally Posted by peeb 

The idea that a nation might respect the customs of a particular religious group is not, prima facia, a bad idea in the UK.

Among the 30,000 people who read the Guardian, perhaps. The rest of the country disagrees with you.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You might be surprised to know this is not considered a bad thing outside the US. Not everyone has been subjected to the same level of propaganda that the US has.

No, apparently those places have been subject to much higher levels of socialist propaganda.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, apparently those places have been subject to much higher levels of socialist propaganda.

We've even got the rotting corpse of Marx on (or rather, in) our turf, infecting our water supply.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

No, apparently those places have been subject to much higher levels of socialist propaganda.

You mean they have really effective, affordable healthcare systems?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You mean they have really effective, affordable healthcare systems?

It seems more like they have somewhat ineffective yet still fairly expensive healthcare systems.

I really can't remember the last time I heard a sentence that fit the template "A socialist country has just revolutionized the field of healthcare by introducing _________!"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

You mean they have really effective, affordable healthcare systems?

You're completely oblivious to reality, no?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It seems more like they have somewhat ineffective yet still fairly expensive healthcare systems.

I really can't remember the last time I heard a sentence that fit the template "A socialist country has just revolutionized the field of healthcare by introducing _________!"

Alberta researchers discover gene that halts HIV's spread