P.C.gone mad?
 

the archbishop of canterbury in his wisdom today says our laws should change to encompass sharia law,i have never heard a crazier idea in me life, ok he dont want the "Stoning" "Hand Chopping" bits, but says our laws are outdated n need to encompass differant religions/beliefs,etc, so far the reaction from the 3 main parties has been = No Way Hose, but how long before 1 of these prats backs him? for me the law of the land is just that, n sod all to do with ANY religion, be it muslim,catholic,c of e, etc etc, personally i think this cretin should be made to resign, if people coming living here cannot accept " British Law" they should leave PDQ.:mad:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Politics and religion, the perfect recipe for disaster :mad:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Why should the law change to encompass different beliefs?
This is just another example of British ways and ideals trying to be taken away from us.
Like you said if people cannot accept our laws then they know what they can do.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

yeh but its the head of the "Church Of England" thats suggesting it.:mad: glad i'm a catholic.:D

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The French government attempted total secularisation of schools. That's where disaster came in. Why? Because they were unwilling to take the time to understand. Ignorance breeds hate.

Most people don't have a clue what Sharia law actually is and react in accordance with how the gutter rag tabloid media in this country has stereotyped the subject.

Religious tolerance and understanding is key to a successful society in a modern world.
We can not continue to trade in a global market with these five hundred year old blinkers on.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

so tell that to them, because they sure as hell dont tolerate our bloody religion matey :mad::mad::mad:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

What is 'our bloody religion' though? The majority of the population doesn't affiliate to any religion at all. Only the monarchy hold any power intertwined with religion; and I think it's safe to say they are only there for the tourists.

The 'them and us' mentality with religious/cultural differences needs to be laid to rest.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Exactly!
Why are we slowly being robbed of our heritage and cultures?
Surely if people wish to live in our country then they should abide by our laws.

If i was in another country i would respect their culture,when in Rome and all that...

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

How ridiculous. Should we "face up to the fact" that some people don't like the laws that say we can't murder other citizens?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

shaker its sod all to do with the "gutter rag"tabloid, it was the archbishop himself, unless i saw a reporter in fancy dress, theres nothing wrong with religious tolerance, this is about the law of the land.:rolleyes:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

what law would you come under if you were religious but the other person wasnt ?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Cashman, I was making the point that Sharia Law has become an enigma within the British media - I was not disputing the authenticity of what the Archbishop said, or the story that reported it.
Sharia law is blamed for all sorts of things within the media, but details are rarely given as to what part of Sharia law or what interpretation leads a person to commit an act. This paraphrasing (extreme understatement but I'm tired) leads to misunderstanding and people end up believing that the entire structure of it is set up to abuse women and dispose of civil rights.

Willow, it's very easy to say that you would not wish to impose the laws of your religion upon another state should you emigrate to it.
However allow me to make an example. Take a quick look at the case of Sayed Pervez Kambaksh in Afghanistan if you are not already aware of the issue. Sharia law - which is independent of state as it is Islamic - is directly affecting state decisions there.
Now take into account the Roman Catholic stance on contraception despite AIDs epidemics in Africa where millions of it's followers are. That religious body sees fit to judge how people live all over the world, and a few centuries ago would have demanded their way in the state law and took action upon their views.
Why is this so different from how some followers of Islam feel? The ones I am referring to dislike Western anglocentricism and wish to have their voices heard. I believe they have a right to be heard and the right to hold a discussion with the law makers of the country to clarify their feelings.

I personally do not believe any religious body should have any effect on laws further than granting respect to allow a right to religion. However I believe for the British to deem Sharia law as an infiltrator of it's cultural norms and values would be extremely hypocritical. It is nothing but arrogance that suggests Britain is 'beyond religious control of state' when demeaning the views of Muslims.

Despite Britain's vast multiculturalism; it is incredibly blind to any other culture.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

i'm catholic n do not agree with their stance on quite a few things, but whatever the pope says makes no differance to the law of the land, from where i'm standing the comments of this stupid man, could quite easy lead to civil unrest from BOTH cultures. because as we all are aware there is zealots in both of em. the comments do nothing whatsoever to aid integration, more cause a wider divide.:(

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The Britain of today should be a secular society, with the church keeping it's nose out of politics.

You'd think the Archbishop of Canterbury, as the leading primate of the Anglican church, would be more interested in restoring laws from the Christian Bible, such as we shouldn't be wearing cloth woven from more than one material, or that it is against the law to cook a goat in it's mother's milk, plus other very sensible laws, rather than force us to accept the laws of Islam.

Still, what do you expect from a man that looks like Catweasle?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

An enigma wrapped up as barbarism maybe.

Sharia law is first and foremost sexist. You never read stories of men being stoned to death, after being sentenced under Sharia law for adultery.

Below is just one example, there are many, many, more.

Sharia law | Today's issues | Guardian Unlimited

And as for respecting peoples sexual orientation, forget it. Public execution is one of the more civilised sentences handed out by the Sharia courts out if you are gay or lesbian.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Religion has always had a strong say in law. Its BASED on natural law which was formed around religion and philosophy. Where do you think 'though shalt not kill' came from for instance? Certainly didn't come from a politician.

I dont know enough about Sharia law to give a solid opinion on this, but if it intergrating the ideas behind sharia law in a way that is acceptable in our culture then its a good idea, after all, its a much stricter discipline than our teachings yet it will not be able to over rule anything the EU law says so why not.

Since religion has become a less focal point of our lives it seems morals have also deteriorated, and as Shakermaker has said it will end up in tears like in France. Religion should always have a say in my opinion.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

As much as a say as anyone else but it doesn't mean to say it should have power. After all you keep telling us what a non-religious country we are now, so surely the majority should have the greater say ?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

religion should always be there for guidance blazey. not to dictate the law what ALL in the U.K. are expected to abide by.:rolleyes:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

my personal feelings on this? ..........someone CHOOSES to live in this country that means accepting our laws. if they dont like that then dont come here.....simple

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Its a known thing that most wars are caused through religion, and have been throughout time. We must also remmber that Dr Rowan Williams is a member of the House of Lords, so to say that he has no baring on the legislation of this country is quite wrong, and this is the part that really worries me. A statement like this is bound to cause much debate, as it has, but to me it was very ill advised in the currant climate. Like has been said before in this thread the law of the land is sacrosanct and anyone who does not agree the best place for them is Heathrow Airport

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The sooner the human race abandons all religion the better.
It is perfectly possible to have a civilised, humane, caring society without religion.
The primitive need to believe in 'a creator' has held back the human race since we emerged from caves.
It has caused more war and human suffering than nationalism ever did.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Does anyone know the marriage and property laws that he suggests changing? In specific detail?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

to me it dont really matter, its the thin end of the wedge, once somethings in- whats next? in a few years would be the aim.no doubt.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Mine too, But the rots set in.....
What happened to the saying When in Rome live as the Romans do?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The Arsebishop of Canterbury is obviously an idiot. As head honcho of the Church of England I suppose he is the 'voice' of the Church. Is this really what the Church of England think?
He needs knocking back down to a choir boy for this stupidity.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Heard this on Radio 4 the other morning and think it hits the nail on the head...

Thought For The Day - 1 February 2008
As Rudy Giuliani pulls out of the race for nomination, the American presidential contest is hotting up, and it's fascinating to see the differences between American politics and ours.

But there's one historic feature of American politics that I think has relevance to us too. Back in the 1830s a brilliant young Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, visited the United States to see how this experiment in liberty was working out. The book he wrote, Democracy in America, remains one of the classics of political thought.

What surprised him was how religious America was compared to Europe. And what he wanted to understand was how religion and democracy can coexist. 'In France', he said, 'I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions', but in America they walked hand in hand.

How did it happen? The answer, he discovered, was that religious leaders were careful never to get involved with party politics. They knew that politics is of its essence divisive. And if religion got too involved with politics, it too would become divisive. So religious leaders focused on strengthening families, creating communities and charities, building schools and encouraging active citizenship. It created what he called 'habits of the heart' that were so essential in sustaining a sense of the common good.

A democratic society needs two things: a way of mediating conflicts, and a sense of shared identity without which there is no society at all. Politics, said Tocqueville, must focus on the conflicts, religion on shared belonging. He added, 'In proportion as a nation assumes a democratic condition . . . it becomes more and more dangerous to connect religion with political institutions.'

Those are wise words, for America and for us. Religious organizations must never become pressure groups for this or that contentious item of domestic or foreign policy. Their task, and I include myself, is moral: to strengthen the bonds of human relationship and the sanctity of human life; and to teach us to love our neighbours as ourselves, especially today when our neighbours belong to so many different faiths. When religion becomes politicized, or politics becomes religionised, bad things happen, and we must avoid that if we can.

It's a hard distinction to keep, and neither America nor we have always succeeded. But that remains the challenge. Politics speaks to our conflicting interests. Religion should speak to our shared responsibilities. That's how religion and democratic freedom can walk hand in hand.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

I agree with u , im spanish and i dont come here demanding people to speak spanish and adapt to my ways of leaving, instead i came to england, learned the language and adapted to the english life, thats the way it should be done, but then again is just the way i see it.
In Ibiza we have moroccons and we dont do things the way the want, we leave it the way they are and thats it and like you say if you dont like dont come here

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

If certain elements of society want Sharia law, then they should migrate to where this is practised...e.g.Saudi Arabia.
There can be no benefits to having two tiers of law......and as one newspaper suggested choosing which law you will be governed by.
The law of the land is there to be obeyed by everyone.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

I dont think they will have two tiers of law as some of you think to be. Elements of Sharia law will simply intergrated into our own law.

It's funny, a lot of people would love to watch some criminals hang and yet a law that advocates that sort of activity is suggested to be made part of our law and then everyone jumps away from the idea. I can understand why some people may think we want these kind of laws. A lot of people on this forum have said the law should be 'eye for an eye'. Many elements of Sharia law follow this natural law do they not?

I personally wouldn't want to see the sexist, natural law ideas implemented into our laws, but sharia law involves a lot of discipline and i think that is what this country needs. It probably wont happen anyway, but if it does I dont think we are going to see the country completely changing its way over night, so I dont think there is a need to worry.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Was the Archbishop of Canterbury not BORN in England? He's the one proposing this change isn't he, not any followers of Sharia law.

Also to whoever mentioned dictating. He cant dictate what is changed because he doesn't have that power, he is only a persuasive force. He can say whatever he likes but it doesn't have to be taken into account.

The country isn't as religious as it was in the past, I'm not denying what I have previously said, but I do think its a loss to the country that we don't have such a strong religious element anymore. I'm not under Church of England so I don't have to believe the same as this guy, and maybe it is a strange thing to come out with, I'm not sure which bits he wishes to change, I haven't read the news, but I do think that some bits may make a positive change.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Correct, he wasn't born in England. He was born in Swansea, Wales.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

MikeSz's post regarding de Tocqueville's impressions of America are worth noting. However, we have always had a separation of church and state here, although not an absence of faith. This fact has long been a source of strength for our country.

As to the Archbishop.....he seems to be implying that the law is a lifestyle choice. It is not the first foolish thing he has said and I doubt it will be the last. He is, to quote Henry II, a meddlesome priest. Under his scenario, Muslim women - who happen to British - will become second class citizens under Sharia.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Good point hon. I think that what people should be guarding against is religious extremism of all forms. When a probably well-meaning man as the Archbishop no doubt is, asks for some tolerance, too many people assume the worst ... that the worst aspects of Islam will become part of the English social fabric. This is not going to happen. Someone mentioned "honor killings" as if muslims had a monopoly on this kind of violence. Every year in Canada over one hundred women and many of their children are murdered by ex boyfriends and ex husbands. Most of these are white males from a christian background ... honor killings with a western twist. In North America christian extremists bomb abortion clinics, kill doctors who perform abortions, beat or kill gays, drag blacks behind pick up trucks, blow up federal buildings, etc. etc. In Canada, in the really friendly city of Saskatoon, white cops dump drunken indians by the roadside to freeze to death. At Iperwash, On, an OPP snipers kills a peaceful native protester. Synagogues are still being defaced by swastikas in our country.

No doubt extreme Islam poses great dangers to world peace. But it is the extremism that is dangerous. Israel faces a threat from the Arab world, but also has to deal with its jewish extremists who make compromise difficult to the point of impossibility.

The English may consider themselves as living in a post-christian state; but that is only because England has, over centuries of trial and error, adopted the better parts of christian teaching into the fabric of their politics and their social relations. Most of the bad parts have been tossed out. Maybe Islam, which has only been around since the seventh century is still working on this secularization of religion. Also, the US is still working thro this problem, as is Canada.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

seems today reports say the archbishop is in "shock" at the furore his comments have caused.! i say the guy has completely lost touch with reality.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The Archbishop needs to do some fence mending in his own back yard before he tries to tell the law makers what should be happening.......the Church of England is divided by so many ecumenical issues at present, you would think he had enough to do to address those without sticking his beak into politics.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

The archbishop is a prime example of what happens to some people given any kind of power, they think the world should listen to them when they speak, and become blinded by the feeling of self importance, he should concentrate on his own business, that of enticing people back into church, and preaching his religion. I am surprised that any woman would even half agree with any of sharia law, given that a large percentage of it seems to be aimed against women, in my humble opinion, we are already too giving in our adoption of some foriegners and thier ways, even so far as posting notices in public buildings in different languages, but specifically, a certain few languages, there are many chinese, african, polish and others in this country, but we don't see thier languages so, or on council forms, therefore, I conclude that any adoption of any law other than our own, (which is far too lax), is another step towards being a minority in our own country.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

i spoke to a couple round our area this aft, n both guys think the guys lost it, n will cause division.:(

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Well I'm a catholic and the bible is just as bad for discriminating against women. If we had never got the vote I could be a doting housewife instead, wouldn't have to bother with getting an education, wouldn't be on accyweb, I could just be a wonderful cook and raise a nice happy family whilst my husband worried about the strains of a job. I want to have an OXO family :D

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

And I'll wait for the angry people to throw stones at me now.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Marry a muslim! A steadfast one, you would not be allowed on here, or to give many opinions about very much, and just think how peaceful it would be for us!! :D:D

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

There was an item on CBC (Colonial Broadcasting Corporation, operating out of an Igloo in Tuktuyaktuk) about the Archbishop. It was rather kind to him saying that his comments were made, but were taken out of a complex context, and exploded by the media. That, I understand. Maybe the good prelate should have been clear and straightforward in his comments like Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty in Sept. of 2005: "There will be no Shariah law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." Now that is not difficult to understand.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

probably cos your lot are not obsessed by P.C.;) but common sense.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

This whole thing seems to be making rather a stir world wide. When the Archbishop comes out of hiding he will probably screw things up even more by trying to explain what he really meant. I kinda feel sorry for the guy, he is in a real mess. As he is looking for a way out he would do well to consider the words of the wise one: "When you are up to your ass in alligators, it is hard to remind yourself that you were sent to drain the swamp."

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Any attempt to introduce part or all of Sharia into the UK's legal system will fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, on appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, would be found to breach the European Convention on Human Rights and so the inclusion will be declared invalid and the Act which permitted its inclusion would then have to be repealed.

Loathe though I am to admit it, Europe does have some uses.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Well, that's one thing in the European Rights Act's favour.

That is the first - and probably last - time I will ever say that. :o

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Glad someone thought that was useful, although the comments were made on Radio 4's thought of the day by a Rev who's name has escaped me. I just pasted the text in.

whilst the differences between the two countries and the constitutional arrangements, especially concerning separation of powers have clear and contrasting differences, I think the text does qualify a broader theme which can apply in any political institution. It is a fine line however. Government is there to govern - in essense, make sure the country runs, when that and religion has always been (traditionally) the only mechanism for rules and citizenship (whether you agree with it or not). The democratic government that we all currently live under is only a historically recent development. the degree to which Religion makes and potentially enforces rules for our lives and the degree to which government deliberates on spiritual issues is always going to result in overlap - and questionable merit, but I think the comments above provide useful guidance.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Really? Canada, Britain and Europe have already boarded the Sharia Train......and I don't think it's a stopping service.

By the way, the Greater Toronto area, (which, the last time I checked, was in Ontario,) has hundreds of polygamous Muslims who are receiving welfare and benefits for multiple spouses. Is that not a contradiction of Western law?

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

I know that you understand Canada well; so, you must realize that there is a wide variety of laws in our country. And you should know that welfare is delivered not by the Federal govt. or the Provincial govts. but by municipalities although the rules and the levels of payments do have some loose consistency. What Premier McGuinty was talking about was the law of Ontario, the law which applies to all Ontarians not just those four or five million living in the GTA. And you are no doubt aware that Premier Jean Charest in Quebec with the support of the PQ is even more outspoken about Sharia, and Quebecers are adamant that Quebec will maintain its unique status, its "distinct society" status, in the Canadian mosaic. The only people in Canada who receive a measure of preferential treatment, or different treatment, are the members of the more than 600 First Nations. But most of the priveleges they have under the law come from a series of Treaties dating back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763.

By the way, I know it's a little late, but happy Ground Hog day:D I know the little rodents disagree. Phil predicts a long winter, but our Wiarton Willy predicts an early spring. I hope our rodent is right:alright:

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Eric, don't fool yourself, sugar.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

What? About the ground hog:confused: I quit fooling myself when I found that fools don't actually live in Paradise ... which is OK because I don't want to go somewhere full of suicide bombers complaining about the shortage of virgins:D

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Forget the hog. Beyond that, I'm losing you.

Re: P.C.gone mad?
 

Don't worry about it hon. I think that we're just disagreeing again:D