Archbishops comments on sharia law in UK

[Deimos]

[quote user="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.

[/quote]

What I meant was he does not represent that many people.  Technically I am in the group you describe (brought up C of E), but there is no way I consider him a "leader".  In fact, whilst many might put C of E on official forms (where it means nothing), few are actually participants in his group.  In fact, thinking about it I don't know anybody how would describe themselves as religious and nobody who goes to any C of E church services.  It appears to me as something of a group in decline.  It might be traditional and the royal family might participate but the participate in a lot of things.

Ian

[Jess]

[quote user="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[/quote]

Hoddy I agree with you completely. Demios I think perhaps if you have a look at sharia law (the bbc do a Q&A page on it) and look in greater detail I  think you may consider that sharia law has no place whatsoever in any democratic country, neither the more "moderate" parts that the archbishop was most likely referring to (marriage and mortgage issues) or the more extreme rulings that make the news re flogging rape victims and beheading gays etc... However even the so called moderate parts of the law are in no way equal to half of the population (namely women) so is this something we should be encouraging? I don't think it is.

When one looks beyond whether his words were misinterpreted or not (there may be something to that) and look at the issue of sharia, I think it's scarey that the insidious creep of the extremist islamists and their agenda - in using the democratic process to try and take power, and then if that were to happen (as outlandish a possibility that might be) do you think that they would allow the democratic process that we currently have (warts and all) to continue..err.I don't think so for one minute. We should resist this strongly. It is not a question of racism, moderate muslims are often pushed to the side and who speaks for them? The extremists seem to have taken control of many previously considered moderate muslim groups/associations (e.g the muslim council of britain). It is all form of extremism we should resist whatever direction that comes from. Muslim should never be synonomous with the term terroist, as christian should not be synonomous with the extremists in the USA (in particular) and their wacky views who give the christian faith a bad name.

We need to open our eyes and see what's happening. Read the excellent book "The islamist" if you want to learn how these extremists seek to radicalise young muslims in the UK and use the democratic system for there own non-democratic aims. Now THAT IS VERY SCAREY[:@][:(]

 

[Will]

I don't want this topic to go off at too much of a tangent, but I am not surprised that Deimos doesn't know anybody who regularly attends C of E services - there are very few of them in France. I would disagree that it is a group in decline, a survey last year found that one in seven attends church at least once a month, and many more say they would 'if they were asked' - so maybe reversal of any perceived decline is in the Archbishop's own hands. I accept this is one of the dreaded self-commissioned surveys, but have a look even so.

http://www.tearfund.org/News/Latest+news/NEW+SURVEY+One+in+seven+adults+attends+church+every+month.htm

There are many more who would count themselves as Christians who may not agree with organised religion (a view I have some sympathy with), some who disagree with the 'trendy vicar' or 'happy clappy' versions of the religion, while I think a majority just don't want to be associated with something that is seen as uncool - Cliff Richard and his like probably have a lot to answer for.

Still. I don't think the Archbishop is going to make things any better as long as the present controversy lasts - or not unless his comments are turned completely into an anti-Islam rant, which would probably strike a chord of sympathy with a large chunk of the population, but is diametrically opposed to what the man stands for. 

Maybe we can get back on track now - I just wanted to stand up for those who are not ashamed to be associated with the Anglican faith.

[Jess]

[quote user="Will"]

Still. I don't think the Archbishop is going to make things any better as long as the present controversy lasts - or not unless his comments are turned completely into an anti-Islam rant, which would probably strike a chord of sympathy with a large chunk of the population, but is diametrically opposed to what the man stands for. 

[/quote]

If I am considered to be "ranting" I would just like to emphasise that it is an anti-islamIST rant as opposed to anti-islam/racist rant. There is a whole world and a half's difference.

I am glad you feel happy to say you are a practising anglican, I myself am anti-religion - yes all of them - as I consider them to be at best, a method of controlling the weak minded and at worse a source of trouble/war/conflict and social division. Now that doesn't mean that I am against anyone having a personal faith - that is a private matter between each person and whatever thing they worship/god/whatever. However, when it starts to be politicised as the islamists are doing with the islamic faith, when you know their aim is to take over and rule by islamic law, I don't think such an eventuality should be allowed. Slowly but surely, our "PC" world is being taken for a very dangerous ride by those wanting to use democracy to destroy it. The sooner we are all aware of this the better. Think Berlin before 1933. I know it may seem unthinkable but we must recognise what is happening and continue to back the rights that have been hard fought for, in terms of freedom/equality/to be at liberty to worship who/whatever you want to. This is not the case in regimes that currently hold to Islamic law. As a woman (a feminist en plus!) I think such a thing would be heading back to the dark ages. 

[Gluestick]

Standing on the sidelines on this one and "Lurking" as I said my bit on the almost parallel thread on polygamy, I do find it droll that the militant groups in the UK, like Muslims owe their increasing "Rights" to precisely the same Bunny Huggers who worked so hard to achieve the feminist's rights and the whole out-of-control PC nonsense: and now the feminists are suddenly realising that their hard won rights could be decimated by the same Bunny Huggers who fought for their rights in the first place!

Which really just goes to show how nonsenical and out-of-step with social reality the whole PC nonsense really has become!

 

 

[Jess]

In some respects we agree gluestick - it is those that think of rights for all at any cost without having the understanding or the "nouse" to realise that some will use those rights to abuse and deform the laws and freedoms of the society in which they live. I however have never been so naive as to fall for the islamists banter and the knee jerk reaction of those falling over themselves to be seen as PC (Tony Blair - but he then realised the error of his ways towards the end of his tenure) and not racist in any way, succombed to pressure and slick talking by these extremists. They must sit and laugh about the ease with which they have achieved such power, and having the people they dispise (left thinkers or as you put it "bunny huggers") actually helping them along the way - think Cherie Blair defending the young girl re wearing the veil in school. Such politicisation of a religion has sinister aims behind it, and all those people who truely believe in freedom (feminists included) should do a bit of eye openning and soul searching on this one. It's not the same as offering a helping hand to a disadvantaged group - this group will take the help and then happily bite off the hand that helped them and seek to destroy the democratic freedoms that they were helped to obtain. Again I must reinforce that my thoughts are anti - fundamentalist radical islamists who seek to transform our democracy into atheocracy. There is no hard feeling towards moderate muslims - indeed, I feel particularly sorry for them as they seem to struggle to find a voice against these zealots for fear of being labelled "kafir". Force, coercion, fear and indoctrinasation rule with these extremists, not the main tennants of the faith which encourages love and respect between all people.

 

[Jess]

"Mr Brown believed religious law should be subservient to UK law, he added. "

The above is from an article on the BBC regarding Williams trying to dig himself out of the mess he got himself into.

Well there's an unresounding level of support from dear old Gordon to the idea of no sharia law in the UK. It seems to suggest, conversely, that there will be sharia law but at a "subservient" level.

Thank goodness I have moved to France permanently - long live laicity. But that other joker Sarko and his side kick MAM are thinking about tinkering with the laicity laws in France. God (if there is one[;-)]) help us!!

[Will]

How much is George W Bush/Nick Griffin/Jean-Marie le Pen (delete as applicable) paying you, Jess? [:D]

[Renaud]

I am glad that the Archbishop is expressing ideas. I may not agree with them but at least he seems to be taking a tiny step towards leadership.

Otherwise he seems to spend his time trying to keep the Anglican Communion together so the fairly fundamentalist (anti-gay) christians in Africa are kept in the same church as liberal Americans (gay bishops et al). So all of them acknowledge him as head of the Anglican Church. But who cares - could he not spend more time tending to his actual flock?

I wish he would also express views and judgments on the issues of the day. It would be good to hear him thundering from the pulpit about the evils of the new all day drinking laws or the licensing of a raft of new casinos. (Gluey could give him a whole list to damn to the rafters).

More seriously do you hear the Archbishop speak out for the persecuted Christians in otherwise Muslim lands? I wish he would provide leadership.

Trouble is that the C Of E is so full of compromisey types - they give the impression of compromising on whether they believe in God - who wish to offend nobody that they keep stum about everything and are therefore ignored and despised.

[Helen]

I think that its worth reading and  attempting to understand what he actually said, his  lecture  seems speculative, it poses many questions, certainly no answers. It doesn't seem to relate at all to the reports that I have seen  in the press.

The topic was Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective. Why,  I wonder did he choose this slant?  I'm surprised that no-one advised him of the possible misinterpretations[8-)]

 http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575

Incidently whilst the number of  Anglicans has declined there are still  over 1 million communicants each Easter and there are many parishes (dare I say often of the more modern persuasion) with active (and young) congregations. I even attend a house group affiliated, though miles from, an Anglican church in France.

[Gluestick]

I agree with most of that Renaud!

Interestingly, Mrs Gluey and I had dinner with our Anglican priest and his family, last night. (We are all great friends and socialise).

He's an unusual Anglican priest, I believe, as he is by academic qualification (first degree and subsequent doctorate) an Earth Scientist and worked as a geologist in the oil and gas biz before becoming a full time university lecturer. Most interesting mind. He took to the cloth later on in life, which I feel adds real world balance.

We discussed this thorny subject a bit and are meeting again on Saturday when we are hosting and they will come, sans kids so more opportunity to discuss this one!

Yes, the general Synod is indeed in disarray, with the liberal element of Bunny Huggers wanting everyone to love them! Whilst the fundamentalists are very concerned with the fate of Christians in Palestine, Egypt and etc. As well as the state of UK society and how it contradicts Christian teaching and precepts.

Personally, as a fundamentalist (You'd never have guessed, huh? [:D]), I very much wish that the C of E became more "Outraged" and represented the moral ethical cause much more and shone like a beacon of example, rather than pussyfooting around trying to please everyone: and destroying its credibility and ethos in the process.

There is a great temptation, today, for a variety of institutions to "Modernise"; the stated justification being to gain greater acceptability.

Unfortunately, my experience of this tells me that by "Modernising", such institutions as the C of E lose the very core essences of differentiation which made them unique in the first place.

Thus it becomes a self-destructive process, and loses credibility.

 

[AnOther]

Personally I think he is ahead of his time.

IMHO UK will eventually become an Islamic state, maybe not in our childrens lifetimes, or even their childrens, but in time it will come to be.

 

[Jess]

[quote user="Will"]How much is George W Bush/Nick Griffin/Jean-Marie le Pen (delete as applicable) paying you, Jess? [:D][/quote]

Now Will, let me sit you down and explain in very easy to understand English why none of the above or their politics are anywhere near what I think and just how people like you who attritute ANY speaking out against an extremist faith as "racism" are a massive part of the problem. The fear of "better not say anything otherwise you'll be labelled a racist" sums up your comment to a tee dear Will [blink].

Listen coz I'll only say this once - Just because I disagree with  how islam has been interpreted by some extremists  does NOT make me racist or linked with any of the clowns mentioned above.

If you actually read what I have said and think about it just a little bit [I] it will be obvious.

There you go Will - some home work for you.

 

[Will]

I do understand your brand of politics - I have worked for the Daily Mail.

Where did I mention racism? I am thinking right-wing anti-muslim. I personally abhor the fundamentalist Islamic so-called clergymen, but not the millions of decent peace-loving muslims.

If those are your sincerely held, reasoned beliefs, that's fine with me. Please just allow me my own faith.

 

[Jess]

Will, let me tell you a secret - I wouldn't even wrap my chips in the Daily Mail it's so right wing - does that let you know something of my politics perhaps? Another hint - I read the guardian....does that give you another tiny clue?

The implication was clear - as Daily Mail headlines often are without actually verbalising it in so many words - to what do you equate the BNP and the national front? You don't have to be on university challenge (even for a Daily Mail reader) to know that the two are often equated to "racism" so nice try Will - but it didn't work. Also if you do bother to go back and read my posts you will see that I too am against the fundamentalist islamists and certainly not against the poor peace loving muslims who have to deal with all the unwanted flak thanks to there "zealot brothers". So we are actually in agreeance but looking  at it from different angles Will.

Also if you want to believe that Pinky and Perky are Jesus Christ incarnate - why the hell not? See a quote from myself below to show that anyone can "be allowed to have their own faith" as you have put it.

"Now that doesn't mean that I am against anyone having a personal faith - that is a private matter between each person and whatever thing they worship/god/whatever."

Does that answer your plee?

Good. I'm off to the pub

Cheers

[Will]

Me too [:D]

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Jess"]

Will, let me tell you a secret - I wouldn't even wrap my chips in the Daily Mail it's so right wing - does that let you know something of my politics perhaps? Another hint - I read the guardian....does that give you another tiny clue?[/quote]

You eat your chips out of newspaper: and you now read the Griduaan???????????[blink]

Got it!

You are a working class closet Bunny Hugger!

[:D]

[Jess]

Spot on gluey!!!

But less of the working class[;-)] - wouldn't like to offend any daily mail readers now would we?

I really must go - am being harranged about getting to the pub..... what's your poisons gluestick and Will? the 1st rounds on me![:-))]

Chin chin

[Hoddy]

Just calling each names doesn't really advance the argument does it ?

I'm happy to be called a feminist. To assume that also makes me a 'bunny hugger' would amuse those people who I quarrelled with about the abolition of hunting. I wasn't particularly in favour of hunting it's just that I didn't understand people's priorities.

As a former communicant member of the C of E and I agree that "It would be good to hear him thundering from the pulpit about the evils of the new all day drinking laws or the licensing of a raft of new casinos."

Again it seems to me to be a question of priorities. In my view the A of C should be shepherding his flock.

I know it's an impossible dream, but I would like to see fairness for everyone and that would certainly not include the adoption of one word of sharia law.

I heard the A of E speak again today - he explained much more carefully what he meant and I still wholeheartedly disagree with him. That doesn't make me a racist. Or even a bunny hugger.

Hoddy

[Will]

Hoddy, I can assure you that there are plenty of feminists who could never be described as bunny huggers. And although I would never go hunting I defended the principle at the time because to do otherwise would be to concur with the brand of new labour thinking that, wittingly or unwittingly, was in danger of effectively abolishing English rural life - and I am afraid to say that is more important to my own existence than Islamic fundamentalism.

I personally feel that there are far more important things in the world that Dr Williams should be thundering about than all day drinking or casinos. If people could be taught moderation in alcohol consumption and gambling such things would not be problems (or maybe  not even wanted). On the whole I like the archbishop, despite his somewhat odd appearance. Although he is off the mark with his present campaign, but I can understand where he is coming from, I have agreed with him on a lot more things than I have disagreed with him. Unlike his stuffy predecessors (and, in matters of religion, I am far more of a traditionalist than a trendy happy-clapper).

But we don't have to agree all the time. I like the sort of discussion that encourages strong opinion - even name calling - but ends up identifying the common ground at the heart of things and an agreement to differ on the details. Just like this one in fact.

 

[Hoddy]

Quite.

I do have a much more personal problem with the good doctor though. He looks so much like my old boss (also a devout Christian) that I struggle to take him seriously at the best of times.

Hoddy

[Renaud]

I am not sure where the idea that bunnies were soft and huggable came from. I once inclined towards it but when we acquired a rabbit the pet-shop owner said he was called the doberman bunny. I asked why and realizing that she had said too much she replied that it was his coloring.

He bit my five year old daughter on sight and continued to try and do so all his long and grumpy life. No ankle or power cable was safe - he made Van Morrison seem sunny natured by comparison.

Apologies mods if this is a bit peripheral to the C of E but it is pertinent to 'fluffy bunnies' and 'bunny huggers' as deplored by the Sticky One. Now I think of it it is exactly relevant to the General Synod.

[Will]

Van the Man's the soul of positivity compared with the average rabbit. Though the idea of him chewing a power cable is rather amusing.

Kittens are the same - anybody who has owned one will know what vicious little sods they are, particularly when their adult teeth start to come through.

The similarity with certain members of the General Synod is noted and agreed.

But forget rabbits, kittens, Irish singers, clergymen - the grumpiest of the lot are the users of this forum who dare to see that French life isn't all a bed of thornless pink roses. 

[Wilko]

I expect you've seen this by now but, whilst not a zenophobe myself, I think it approaches the immigrant issue from a stand point of clarity, don't you?.

We Need Leaders Like This!

 

                Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

 

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia : one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia " "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."< /B>

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,

'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

If you agree please SEND THIS ON

 

[AnOther]

Hoorah for the Australian stance. Sadly, and tragically, the British seem to have neither the nerve nor stomach for such straight talk which reinforces my earlier comment that sooner or later the UK will become an Islamic state.