Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK

[Jess]

Does anyone else think that he's lost it completely? Scholarly he might be but perhaps the ivory towers suit him better than being chief of  the CoE.

Does anyone else think that the UK could learn alot from France's laicity laws, and that religion should play no part in the state or legislative system?

I would value people's opinions.

Many thanks

J

[mint]

No, I don't think he's lost it completely.  I think that part of his job is to stimulate discussion and not let his flock or the UK population generally get too bogged down in the way they think about things.

It's good to talk, to coin a phrase!

[Jess]

Of course freedom of speech and all that make it interesting to hear what he thinks on certain subjects. But don't you think that considering his position he was very naive indeed to discuus such a possibility when you know how unequal the sharia law actually is?

It shocks me, and makes me want to ban all religion in relation to the state, including getting rid of bishops in the house of lords. They shouldn't be there. Religion is good for two things - causing division/conflict and controlling the weak minded.

Laicity is where we should be - there should be NO laws based on religion - jewish/islamic/christian/hindu/or any bunch of fanatics that call themselves a religion. People should be judged under 1 law, not 1 that applies to 1 coz he's jewsish and to another coz he's muslim. 1 law;1 judgement - it should not be choose what you fancy depending on your faith - what utter rubbish [:@]

[mint]

Jess, I don't know much (if anything) about Sharia law.  All I was saying was that I thought that an Archbishop should encourage questioning of all kinds (religious or lay) of thinking and doing.

Whether we like it or not, he is an important public figure and I for one would be very disappointed if he just witters on about non controversial subjects and the official church's view on things.

I'm not sure whether he is naive or not (after all, I don't know him that well [;-)]) but I would assume that he thinks about his speeches and probably has advisors to help him with them.  The man is not quite an utter fool, you know!

[Jess]

LOL sweet!

Utter fool maybe not but ill advised and so out of touch with the UK public that he should go and do his thing at a uni and leave religion to those who realise the impact of what they say and know how NOT to play into the hands of the far right who must be rubbing their hands over this. He is probably a very nice man (I don't know him at all[;-)]!) but one that needs to wake up and realise that human rights should come way way before religious rights.

There - my rant is over - glad I got that off my chest!

chin chin

J!

 

[Jess]

PS What are all the blue yellow circles about under my name? Sorry first time in this forum so not sure what they mean?

Tar

J

[Russethouse]

There are more comments here : http://www.completefrance.com/cs/forums/1158744/ShowPost.aspx

I think the blue and yellow under your posts have to do with the number of posts you have made

Welcome to the forum

.

 

[Jess]

Thanks Russethouse - glad to be here![:)]

[Jess]

Sorry - another dumb question, how come I haven't got a PM widget thing next to the email widget thing below my post?

Yours stupidly

J

[Russethouse]

Because why would you want to PM yourself ? [:)]

Don't worry we can all see your PM widget, its only you that cannot.

[mint]

RH, you are a STAR!

Jess, she's generally got an answer!

[Jess]

Yes RH

Doh! as what's his name would say, or alternatively, if I had a brain I'd be dangerous!

Widgets, technology and politics = don't agree with me or vice-versa [:$]

Tar for pointing out the obvious![:$][:$]

bon soir

J

[Deimos]

These days I'm pretty anti-religion in general.  In theory it could be a massive benefit to society (any/many of them).  However in practice they fall far short of achieving anything useful.

What the Archbishop said was not offensive, rude, did not try to incite racial hatred, did not do loads of things.  His comments were quite legal, decent, etc.  So why the "outcry".  Just because people stretch what he said a bit and don't agree with it why all the calls for his resignation.

Even if he was "wrong" - so what.  Just because somebody says something that is "wrong" (but harmless) no cause for them to resign.  Maybe if people came up with some valid debatable comments or facts that present the other side of the argument them he might reconsider and modify his opinions.  But all they can do is comment on him "being better suited to academia" (i.e. no good at his job) and that he should resign.

I don't agree with lots of things lots of people say but am quite happy for them to say them.  sometimes I even listen to the points they raise and find myself changing my own attitudes.  God forbid that anybody that says something others don't agree with should lose their jobs, etc.

For me the major disappointment in this incident is the reaction of "the population" (or press ?), not his comments (which I strongly disagree with - but that is not very relevant).

Ian

[mint]

Very well said, Deimos.  That is along the lines of my own thinking.  But, I do also feel quite strongly that "leaders" of society have an obligation to challenge and stimulate and the Archbish certainly did that!

[Kitty]

I don't understand the fuss.  He was addressing lawyers, who are used to subtleties.  He wasn't talking about criminal law but civil law.  Leave the man alone.

 

[Gluestick]

He is a leader in a sensitive position, during a time of significant crisis in British society.

As a such a leader he ought to be extremely careful in what he states, since quite obviously, any comment on matters relating to social diversity, multiculturalism and Islam will be bound to be picked up by the ever-fevered media and misquoted as an attention getting soundbite.

Even his predecessor, Lord Cary is not happy!

And, anyone who really believes that these issues are NOT becoming critical, is sadly dreaming!

As an example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece

 

[Hoddy]

Dr Williams may be right about the adoption of Sharia law being inevitable. It is already operating in many parts of the UK today. The problem with his high intellectual arguments is that they seem to be oblivious of how such things work out in practice.

As a long-time feminist I find it quite outrageous that we might hand over the hard worn rights of British women over their marital status, property and children to a patriarchal group of men who think that they are sanctioned by god rather than democracy. The idea that these women would be able to choose whether or not to have their problems resolved by a sharia court is so naive as to be laughable. A woman who chose a British court would be cast out from the community with all the penalties that this implies.

Hoddy

[Will]

The trouble is that in Britain there is a general belief, fuelled by the tabloid media (as may be expected) and to a lesser extent the BBC (which should not be expected) that the words Muslim or Islam are synonymous with Terrorist and extreme punishments. Those who subscribe to this theory have picked up on the Archbishop's comment and built it up to promote their anti-Islam agenda.

A good example was on the BBC yesterday morning, where the discussion went along the lines of:
1. Under Sharia law, sex outside marriage is unlawful.
2. In many muslim countries beaking the law is punishable by flogging.
3. Dr Williams suggests Sharia law be introduced in Britain.
4. If a woman is raped, that counts as sex outside marriage under Sharia law
5. Therefore we will have to punish the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators, and women who are raped get flogged under Sharia law.

Put like that, it looks as ridiculous as it really is.

Even so, Dr Williams seems to have been very foolish to use words like 'unavoidable' if he was really putting up a proposition for further discussion.

With that wonderful thing, hindsight, it seems clear that the Archbishop was talking far more about allowing the Muslim community to operate Sharia law among themselves in areas such as financial settlements in marriage disputes rather than a general introduction of Sharia principles across the board. Though this is certainly not how it was reported last week.

Remember too that even in the Anglican community, Dr Williams is not like in certain circles where is views are regarded as too liberal, so they too have a vested interest in discrediting him.

And I wonder how the McCartneys would fare under Sharia law?

 

[Russethouse]

http://www.cousincouples.com/info/facts.shtml

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_legal_to_marry_your_first_cousin

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html#Toc115570255

Goodness !

 

 

[Hoddy]

Interesting links Gay. I don't understand the science of genetics.

I do know a lot about some of the communties we're talking about though. where first cousin marriages are encouraged, it happens in generation after generation. I know one family, for example, where a brother and sister married a brother and sister. The first cousins produced by these two marriages are more closely related than many ordinary first cousins. Thankfully, all the kids are OK. When a situation like this goes on through several generations it's not surprising if problems occur. It wouldn't be so bad if children born with birth defects were welcomed and treasured.

Hoddy

[Will]

Thanks for those links RH.

In all the fuss, it is easy to forget that even in the so-called 'civilised' and Christian world, marriage between cousins is perfectly legal. In many small communities it is not only legal, but difficult to avoid. In the rural Sussex village where I grew up I know examples of families who were related to each other in several different ways, and who had managed that without breaking any of the guidelines. When step-families in such communities come into the equation it gets even more bizarre, with second cousins who become siblings... As nearly everybody in the village is related to each other in some way it is difficult to avoid such things.

And exactly the same thing still applies to many rural French communities too, which may not have had the same benefit(?) of large influxes of incomers from the towns like we have in Sussex. Perhaps that's another point in favour of the 'British invasion'?

This Madness song, based on a traditional West Indian calypso, was very popular in Normandy a couple of years ago. I wonder if those listening to it on the radio really understood the words? [:)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlqbt1PQ1ek&feature=related

[trees]

I wonder if Dr Williams is cleverer than most people realise?

What he SEEMS to have done is brought the adoption of Sharia law, muslims rights etc by stealth, to the notice of the general public.

The government have now HAD to come out and roundly condemn the idea. I wouldn't trust them so to do otherwise[;-)]

Good thing, maybe?

[mint]

As they say, Trees, there are more ways to skin a cat.........not that I agree with skinning cats, before any cat lovers get worried.

To my mind, it's very good sometimes to just put a bit of a catalyst into any mix and watch the results.  It's the same old same old stuff, God's in his garden, all's right with the world kind of mentality that really gives me headaches.

After all, look what the invention of the printing press did to society at the time.  Talk about setting the cat amongst the pigeons...........

There you are, cats again; they are quite the most beautiful and intelligent creatures you can care to name.

[Deimos]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

He is a leader in a sensitive position, during a time of significant crisis in British society.

As a such a leader he ought to be extremely careful in what he states, since quite obviously, any comment on matters relating to social diversity, multiculturalism and Islam will be bound to be picked up by the ever-fevered media and misquoted as an attention getting soundbite.

[/quote]

In the scale of "sensitive issues" there are far more serious "transgressions".  For example, when a leader of a major religious group condemns millions to death just because of his church's dogma (thinking here about the Pope telling everybody they cannot use a condom and get into heaven - in fact in many countries, not using a condom will speed ones route to heaven).  Things like that are outrageous.

I agree he is a leader but he does not actually lead many these days.  Were it somebody like Gordon saying what he intended to do I can appreciate there might be a bit of an outcry.  My own impression is that if the UK is to survive the current social diversity it needs to be able to have issues raised by people without such a ludicrous reaction.  If people cannot consider things, discuss them, agree or disagree with them then I cannot see much hope for the future.

I don't know much about Sharia law (probably not even how to spell it), but I think it must be beneficial for people to look at it, identify the good bits and ideas and see how they might improve the existing legal system.  Certainly the current UK laws are not perfect and maybe there are one or two (or more) aspects to Sharia that could improve the existing system (for everybody) - sort of take the best of both worlds.  Seems though people cannot even mention it.

Ian

[Will]

[quote user="Deimos"]

I agree he is a leader but he does not actually lead many these days. 

[/quote]

I disagree. The vast majority of English people were brought up in, and belong to his branch of Christianity and basically try to live according to its rules, though there are many obvious exceptions. Admittedly comparatively few actually attend churches regularly but that doesn't mean they are not Anglicans.

He is actually a very effective leader. While he has been in office the CofE has turned around its official thinking on subjects like homosexuality and, in particular, the acceptance of divorcees in the church. Which is precisely why his latest faux-pas has been seized upon by his predecessor and several other conservatives in the CofE.