DerekJ Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 What's the archbishop of Canterbury got to do with anything... a total irrelevance as are all religous leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Profuse apols, Hoddy! [:$]Can't have me being rude about your alma mater.Grabbed out of the air, on the fly, in the middle of trying - badly today! - to do work work!Shall we say, well, Lewisham, instead?Or, reverting to that wonderful Sellers recording, Balham? (gateway to the South!).[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Not in the Muslim community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Edited : I've just read the original lecture and the Archbishop does say 'it is crucial to distinguish between cultural and strictly religious dimensions so the examples I originally gave don't seem to be relevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Helen, I hold my breath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 1000 = 'tiny' small number ? It is, apparently, £10 Million, = 2 schools etc, And, in Salisbury loads of schools with tatty, shed- like buildings (mobiles) badly insulated or sound proofed etc., and the LEA has no money to build proper buildings!And, loads of pennypinching in the NHS.Not forgetting that polygamy is illegal for the rest of us.What a crowd of wasters we have at Westminster!Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 There is acertain piquant irony here. After all, leave aside the British desire to haveaccess to alcohol, a certain degree of interest in sexual licentiousness and a generalbelief that women should be no longer treated as chattels, and shariah law doesrather fulfil a solution to What Is Wrong With Britain Today. For example:clamping down on, well, pretty much everything; having no truck with same sexmarriages, loutish behaviour, truancy, teenage pregnancy, the poor performance ofthe national football team and corruption in public life. All the preceding tobe punishable with physical penalties up to and including death. The Daily Mailshould love it.Plenty ofpeople moan about the legal system in the UK – how unjust the speed camerasare, how the teachers can’t clip kids around the ear for fear of prosecution,how litigious the country has become, etc and the Archbish pops up and offers some imaginativeideas for combating this – at least in some quarters of society - and everyonejumps on him…Actually,what really scares people about shariah law is that it is faith based. The UK maynominally be a Christian nation, but the idea of actually basing law on that or indeed any religous philosophywould scare the crap out most people. One of thegreat plus points of Christianity (at least the version currently in vogue chezC of E) is that one can profess a sort of general, in principle, agreement withsome of the fluffier parts and comfortably ignore the more rigorous stuff. Goalong with the idea of being quite nice to people, where this is convenient, butkeep shopping on Sunday, that sort of thing. If onecould sign up to be judged according shariah law in Britain, but only by choice,it would be interesting to see how many of those advocating the need for afirmer hand (wielded with enthusiasm and without mercy) would be prepared to doso.Give the poor old Archbish a break. After all, freedom of speech and opinion is what we're all supposed to be about, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tresco Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Very clever post Mr Riff.[:D][quote user="The Riff-Raff Element"]...Give the poor old Archbish a break. After all, freedom of speech and opinion is what we're all supposed to be about, isn't it?[/quote]I wouldn't dream of denying the Bish his say, but I don't think he'd be in favour of according me the same privilege. What Deimos said made a whole lot of sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Jon, elements of Sharia are barbaric nonsense and you know it. it has no place in Western traditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Arcbishop is in a position of responsibility and is seen as 'establishment' by many.If he was a paid recruiter for the BNP he could hardly have done a better job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote]Jon, elements of Sharia are barbaric nonsense and you know it. it has no place in Western traditions[/quote]Its all relative. About 300 years ago the British were still hanging drawing and quatering people. They'd probably have viewed the shariah rules on setting a minimum size for rocks to be used in stonings as to avoid prolonged suffering as being sissy.Western traditions have no monopoly on civilisation. Hell, we've only just stopped hanging and beating people ourselves. Personally I regard this as progress, but there's plently of people out there who would be delighted to see the return of capital punishment and, indeed, would be perfectly happy to "pull the lever themselves." We're a full hairs breath from barbarism - no further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 We need to discuss this young man, face to face over a few beers.[6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="Russethouse"]The Arcbishop is in a position of responsibility and is seen as 'establishment' by many.If he was a paid recruiter for the BNP he could hardly have done a better job.[/quote]Oh come on Gay. If the position of Archbishop were a serious one he'd be in the cabinet as "Minister for Moral Fibre" and his responsibilty would be backed by some actual authority. He is establishment in the same way as Father Christmas.Britain is no longer a Christian country or in any other way a theocracy. It should come as no surprise to anyone that some people may still want to follow as system of laws based in faith nor that an archbishop should be amongst them.This incident should get him more column inches than his appointment. Which is better than being ignored, as he is most of the rest of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote]We need to discuss this young man, face to face over a few beers.[6][/quote]Absolutely. Before the Archbish and his cohorts prohibit the sale of beer. I'll check my calendar with The Boss and drop you an email tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 This I am seriously looki,ng forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gluestick Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="DerekJ"]What's the archbishop of Canterbury got to do with anything... a total irrelevance as are all religous leaders.[/quote]There is an ancient dictum, Derek, about not arguing about religion, politics and football!I shall partially break one of those tenets!The C of E is a foundational aspect of the unwritten, non-codified British Constitution.The Archbishops can and do sit in the Lords and are part of the process of jurisprudence. As are a number of the Bishops.British and in particular English law comprises a mix of Common Law, Cannonical (i.e. church) Law, Equity and Statutory Law.Anglican priests are bound by certain tenets of that law to marry people residing within their parish and christen their offspring and also have an obligation to inter parishioners, even those who do not atttend church.A C of E priest has, for many years been considered a worthy witness for various legal documents including passport applications (e.g.).HM The Queen is not only the head of state and thus jurisprudence but is also the titular head of the C of E.At this precise moment, various militant groups seek to break up British Constitution where they don't happen to want to be bound by it.To me, this is rather like accepting The Queen's shilling and serving in the military, but trying to disregard the bits of Queen's Regulations you don't happen to like!"I like the bit about three squares a day: and the bit about somewhere warm to sleep: and the bit about being paid. But I don't like the bit about having to wear a uniform; saluting officers: and as for that bit about being killed for Queen and Country, well, you can keep that!"By all means, agitate for change to British Constitution: by becoming a politician and attempting to change the law.By all means, change to a republic and move for disestablishmentarianism (My old English master would be thrilled! I remembered the word!), sack HM, sell off Buck House and make the UK a state of Pakistan.Legally, through political representation and what passes as democratic consensus. Not via the back door, because a number of Bunny Huggers suffer from social myopia and confusion about what Do Gooding is actually achieving.Good luck.I won't be living in England at the time, however................. [Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="Frederick"] Even people coming here are amazed we are actually giving them this money..and their newspapers print articles telling them whats available to them and how to claim when they get here ... ... Where the money coming from to keep paying these new claims ....not from more in taxes people have not got the spare money to pay more ...they cant make end meet now many of them . [/quote]Sorry - haven't yet read the whole thread - Are we still talking about brits coming to france and accessing the FREE health service?rgdshagar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 [quote user="tegwini"]1000 = 'tiny' small number ? It is, apparently, £10 Million, [/quote]I understand the figures to be - around 1000 polygamous families reside in britain - of those a "tiny" proportion claim benefits. If you think that could amount to costing the tax payer £10 M then you have never lived on benefits.The NET cost to the taxpayer of NOT CHANGING this ruling (which is actually what the original story is about) is NIL. Indeed I understand that if they had changed the status quo - which was put in place by Thatcher's government in 1987 - it would have cost the tax payer more - but not much - we are talking about 100 or so people at most.rgds hagar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Is it really just the financial issue or is it the fact that it highlights the fact that an immigrant group is perceived as being able to flout UK law ?I don't want any woman or child to be disadvantaged in our society, if benefit is needed and is available, so be it. But would it be so very unreasonable to say that in the UK having more than one wife at any one time is a crime punishable with a prison sentence, if you want to live here, you too must abide by that law, the choice is yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybananasbrother Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 The Brits have the right to set out their stall. If you dont like it then you try and change it through the ballot box and public opinion, not via back doors as is being suggested now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 8, 2008 Author Share Posted February 8, 2008 Yes Hagar, you have a point- it may be 'potentially' £10 milion, BUT do we really know what the government spends, what the trade deficit is, how much government borrowing is happening, & what the national debt is now & what it will be in a year or two? But, just the thought that they might spend that much really annoys me.It's still money wasted whilst we have pot-holed roads, a health service that cannot afford to treat cancer victims, & has waiting lists, (I have just been on one for something relatively minor, but not to me, & it was for 5 months); soldiers minus the appropriate equipment in Afghanistan (recently one died unnecesarily due to a lack of helicopters!), UK pensioners on very low pensions, and so on - ad infinitum ...It's also objectionable, and I agree with Russethouse here, and really believe that laws have to be consistently applied to everyone to be fair, to make sense, to be respected ... It's also a slap in the face for British women. who had to struggle to get equal rights, which included fairness in marriage & divorce.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 "The Brits have the right to set out their stall. If you dont like it then you try and change it through the ballot box and public opinion, not via back doors as is being suggested now" Now there's a novel idea, woolyb's b....(I don't seem to be able to quote your posts for some reason. Shame 'cos they often strike me as quite astute.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 [quote user="cooperlola"](I don't seem to be able to quote your posts for some reason. Shame 'cos they often strike me as quite astute.)[/quote]To quote WoolyB's b, you need to remove the apostrophe (') from the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Framboise Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 Wasn't it Les Dawson who said that he would be perfectly happy with more than one wife, the drawback being he would also have more than one mother-in-law?? [:P]The A of C seems to be so keen on appeasing everyone else, he has forgotten where his own flock are. He should be putting his OWN house in order before interfering elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 [quote user="Framboise"]The A of C seems to be so keen on appeasing everyone else, he has forgotten where his own flock are. He should be putting his OWN house in order before interfering elsewhere.[/quote]He hasn't got much of a flock these days. Average Sunday attendences are down to around six people, and two of those are usually drunk and / or mad. Everyone else is shopping. He could try talking about old fashioned Anglican virtues, but no-one would listen. I'm convinced he's done this to get more attention from the media. It worked too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now