laws are there to provide a safe place for people to maintain their identities and values, not to create a universal identity or value. as such, everyone of varying values has a right to a say in what those laws should be.
Basically, what Rowan Atkinson is saying is that law is put in place not as a means of 'universal...social existence', but more to do with having a system that incorporates things from all walks of life. So in theory, we should have laws that help everyone in our country. Therefore what he's basically saying is that Sharia Law should be given some leeway in our legal system, because it is something that alot of the population (being Muslim) abide by. Make sense?
I am too lazy to think about it myself...Otherwise I'd definately understand it. Most definately :uhoh2:
I do now. I was just saying that I'd understand the complicated version as well if I really wanted to think deeper about it. In my defense, English is not my first language.
crucifixtion is in the quran so it has to be part of sharia law its part of the legal code of countrys who fully apply sharia . he seems to think that you allow people to follow what laws they like , I suppose this goes with multiculturalism which seems to see all cultures as equally valid , personally I dont think they are . I dont think islam has a great record of just staying as part of the legal system without moving to try to take over more . basically multiculturalism is a vehicle for invasion , I dont think at the moment anyones going to stop this process but at some point there is likely to be a backlash and a lot of violence and genocide . really the arch bishop should be more of a student of history
This I understand. I think someone mentioned Balkan, which is a great example for what you're talking about. Multiculturalism is basically a good thing untill one culture starts developing dangerous ideas...
how old are you dhh do you remember the recent balkans wars ,or the fact the place is still a powerkeg , and has one of the worst historys of really nasty interethnic wars anywhere . if you take countrys that are Homogeneous like britian used to be to a extent and like say japan. and then you take countrys split with large numbers of people with a history of conflict going back thousands of years, wanting different legal systems refusing to marry or integrate , Id say on average the more Homogeneous countrys are more peaceful .
I was kidding. I was born in Bosnia, moved to Croatia when the war began, been a poor refugee for many years , so you dont have to tell me anything about Balkan, Balkan wars and conflicts.
look at it from a muslim who believes in sharia law point of view and Ive read books written by them ,they see this as a gradual process so you get marriage courts which gets people used to the idea of two processes of law in the country then you gradually expand , it may take a while but thats the aim .
Its okay... Its not much of a background though. And you were totally right. Just look at Bosnia. I havent seen a country that is more depressing. There is no future. Serbians, Croatians and Bosnians ( Muslims ) living in one country.....That was bound to fail. Its not a natural state. Three equal cultures in one country...No can do.
That's the trouble with not expressing yourself in a clear and straightfroward way - other people will go and simplify things for you, and attack what they decide you "seem" to be saying. I don't think Williams has said people should "follow what laws they like". He has suggested that there should be a place for Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes. According to the BBC something similar has been happening for centuries among orthodox Jews: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm
